Jerel McNeal Scouting Report

The Good: Strong two guard at the college level. Uses his strength to overpower opponents and create shots. Possesses the ability to play with his back to the basket. Has improved his range and three point stroke drastically over 4 year college career. Has a knack for knocking down midrange pull up and fadeaway jumpers. Finishes well with both hands. Uses his awareness and length on defense to create havoc. Good on-ball defender and moves his feet well.

The Bad: Lack of size to play two guard in the pro's. Lack of dribbling and passing skills to play the point. Doesn't make people around him better. Solid athlete, but not explosive. Has difficulty beating opponents off the dribble, doesn't have great first step or burst to the basket. Handle needs work. Has difficulty maintaining dribble with his left hand. Jump shot is flat and lacks elevation.

Low Down: McNeal can be a useful bench player for defense and energy. No dominant attribute to his offensive game. Overall athletic ability underwhelming. Not a natural shooter, despite three point percentage as a Senior. Will have plenty of difficulty finding shots at the next level against longer, stronger opposition.

This will scare you away from drafting him if your an NBA organization dont you think? He's 6'3 and they had nothing good to say about his handling and passing skills. That will be a problem in the NBA.

If Jerel measures in legitimately at 6'3", then some team in the mid to low 20's need to draft him. Players who understand the game, play hard AND improve every year are rare at any level. Add to it Jerel's habit for making plays when they need to be made and some playoff team would have any excelent guard to bring off the bench. Charlie Bell isn't a bad comparison.

This is just my personal write-up on Jerel. Not from a service of any kind.

usfballer:These Marquette seniors have never had success in the NCAA Tournament. He plays hard, but classifying him as a 'winner' might be a bit strong. I do agree, however, that he does portray some winning qualities.

Fair enough, but how many games wins would you expect from a team that has had ZERO post presence in not only the deepest, but the BIGGEST conference in the country? All three of their guards (and Lazar Haywood) are underrated winners to me.

I watched most of the game today also, and I can't say I was impressed with anyone. I just can't understand how Earl Clark would go top 10. I'd draft Wesley Mathews over all of them, and he's the one that will be like Charlie Bell.

He Kinda reminds me of Mario Chalmers a little, comparable size and Chalmers was a bit of a tweener coming out, he started at the 2 for Kansas keep in mind. He plays a lead guard style offense, He brings it up alot if you watch them, makes some good passes, and doesn't really have many bigs to dish to in the lane, his only real options are to finish or kick out. He is real nice midrange, he has a way of getting shots to fall. If he is a legit 6'3, he doesnt look it but if he is, late first would be a steal for him. I could see him bieng a poormans Rodney Stuckey, combo guard type who is nice on point and does alot of little things to score and contribute. At 6'2 or 6'3 and solidly built, He is quick enough to actually be a pretty nice sized point guard in the NBA who can hit midrange and from 3 and create off the dribble a little. Plus, he is ready from day 1. I see little bust potential with him.

I see him as a jack of all trades, he can do a little of everything. I think he can be a servicable back-up in the league and get by at both positions. I think he's just a guard, point or shooting I don't think it will affect him to play both spots. I don't think he'll be a star but can be of some value to a good team that can let him develop slow. Late first round pick is a good spot for him.